Send those prefixes one-by-one to the "whois" command, extract the "netname" field, and remove duplicates again:

| xargs -i whois {} | grep netname | sort -u
Note that this takes a while to run because of the time it takes the Whois server to respond.

The prefix-list that I used to get the output from the first step is as follows:

ip prefix-list GT24 permit 0.0.0.0/0 ge 25

Note that I used this as an argument to "show ip bgp", not as part of the config!

Now, this obviously isn't entirely accurate, because it only shows the providers that are leaking long prefixes that aren't being filtered by any of my providers, but it's interesting. I also searched based only on the parent /16, so there could be lower-level providers that I'm missing.

Some of them are clearly the same provider tagged with different whois records (e.g., "TBROAD" and "TBROAD-KR").

netname:
AFRINIC-NET-TRANSFERRED-200909

netname: ASI

netname: ASIANET

netname:
AquaRaySARL-2

netname: BIDCMain(about 100 more)

etc. Run it yourself to get the full list from your router's perspective!

Saturday, March 9, 2013

The Python module "SimpleHTTPServer" is traditionally a quick and dirty way to test web code without the overhead of installing a full webserver. You can also use it as a quick way to transfer files between systems, if you have Python available:

This causes Python to make all the files in the current directory available over HTTP on port 8080. From the client system, you can then use a browser, curl, or wget to transfer the file.

No, it's not secure, and yes, it may violate data exfiltration policies (and as an aside, Bro detects this by default). But I've used it fairly often to move files between Windows and Mac or Linux in situations where SCP isn't available and I don't feel like setting up a fileshare.

I've also used this in conjunction with the "time" command to test the effects of latency on various network protocols, and as an improvised way to test WAN optimization software.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

I've been largely out of touch with the IT certification scene lately, but I'm sure that people are still complaining incessantly about the fact that they need to memorize "trivia" in order to pass certification tests. Back when I was teaching Cisco classes full-time, my certification-oriented students were particularly bitter about this. Of course, this is a legitimate debate and the definition of "trivia" varies from person to person.

When I saw this article about CloudFlare's world-wide router meltdown, however, I immediately felt a bit smug about all those hours spent learning and teaching about packet-level trivia. If you don't want to read the article, here's the tl;dr:

their automated DDoS detection tool detected an attack against a customer using packets sized in the 99,000 byte range.

their ops staff pushed rules to their routers to drop those packets

their routers crashed and burned

So at this point you should be saying what some of the commenters did: huh? IP packets have a maximum size of 65,536 bytes, because the length field is 16 bits long.

In order for this meltdown to happen, they had to have a compounded series of errors:

the attack detection tool was coded to allow detection of packet sizes that can't actually occur: no bounds checking.

the ops staff didn't retain the "trivia" that they learned in Networking 101, and thus couldn't see the problem with the output generated by the detection tool.

the router OS didn't do input validation, and blew up when attempting to configure itself to do something crazy.

There's lots of blame to go around here, and my intent isn't to add to that; rather, my point is to tell everybody who dutifully memorized and retained stuff like the maximum IP packet size to feel good about yourself for a few minutes! And next time you write networking code: do input validation and bounds checking.